As usual, Nigel Stark and John Hieger have engaged in black and white, all or nothing arguments. Nigel would like us to believe that ALL Democrats don't care at ALL about sexual infidelity or morality. John's all or nothing phrasing on Clinton's sexual acts unfortunately plays nicely into Nigel's own extremism, even while Nigel ignores John's larger and valid point regarding the war.
I'm generally a Democrat, and I know what Clinton did was wrong in a personal sense. But what is really important (or worse, depending on your slant) in terms of the duties and power of the presidency, and what we should use valuable federal resources and tax dollars investigating?
On one hand, we have a man who lied about sex between two consenting adults.
On the other hand, we have a man, and an administration, whose possible lies, personal agendas and abuse of power have (arguably) led to American deaths, billions of dollars in costs, and distraction from the real war on terror.
This is the same president who possibly engaged in various acts to undermine the presidential election itself, whose administration had possible meetings with the Taliban and favored energy company buddies in shaping our nation's energy policy, etc., etc.
Neither is right in a general moral sense. But arguably, one is more wrong in the context of a president's duties. That is what has John so angry, and it does not make all Democrats morally bankrupt; it just means we have different priorities for what makes a good president, or what deserves federal investigation and impeachment.
Respond to this posting
Written by Randy Henderson, a regular contributor to NEXT
Back to top